or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Russia losing the War on Terror
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Russia losing the War on Terror - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
So Steve,

When the US tolerates Pinochet's mass murder, and actively backs up the Shah's violent dictatorship, that's not 'appeasment' but a foreign policy mistake. When the EU invests in Palestinian infrastructure that's appeasment.

By the way, the first of those two resulted in hundreds of thousands of atrocities and two overthrown democratic governments.

Policies based on faith not fact are doomed.

You cannot eradicate violence with violence. Please, tell me ONE THING. Given that it has NEVER WORKED EVER, but violence in Northern Ireland is largely a thing of the past, why do you think that violence not addressing root causes is the way to go?

You are confusing stupid foreign policy with appeasing those without a State killing foreign civilians all over the world. It is different and i think you know that.

The EU investing in Palestinian infrastructure is not what I am talking about. it is allowing Palestinian terrorists to slip through airports on their way to killing Americans or israelis as long as that European country is not attacked.

Northern ireland-how long did that conflict last? Would it have been solved sooner if they didnt resort to terror? I think it would. I also think there would have been a Palestinian State a long time ago if it werent for Arafat, your hero.
post #42 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
What fun.

But tell me, is the expectation that "the terrorists" will all be wearing shirts with big red "T"s on them so they will be easy distinguish from the local population when it comes time to "kill them all"?

Or does "NO RULES OF ANY KIND" mean you get to kill everything in sight, just to make sure you get all the "terrorists".

For the Russians, this would seem to mean simply killing everybody in Chechnya, which I suppose is one way to do it. Of course, such an atrocity would probably lead to other groups beginning to attack Russia, but after, say, 4-5 million dead maybe everybody would get the idea and leave Russia the fuck alone. Or not.

War on terrorism "won", World War III just getting going.

No rules mean you dont arrest them, you kill them.
post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Yes, and you so conveniently decide that you're the expert. Gee, i guess the rest of us should stop posting because crazychester is the only one who knows anything. Oh wait, no, if you happen to agree with crazychester, than you can continue.

This one I shouldn't reply to because now you are trolling. But hey, you wanna dig a hole for yourself, I'll grab a shovel and help you out.

Expert huh? Well if you think somebody whose knowledge of Northern Ireland derives almost entirely from newspapers and the TV news, then I'll wear the mantle of expert but not exactly proudly.

You know what? You could have Googled the answers to all but the last of those questions (the last one was sarcasm) and replied so quickly that I wouldn't have known whether you really knew what you were talking about or not. But you couldn't even be bothered doing that.

If you don't know who the main protaganists were in the NI or any other conflict for that matter, you do not have the right to say things like "kill 'em all".

Quote:
Northern ireland-how long did that conflict last?

You tell me. (No linky I'm afraid, lazy sod.)

And seeing you're happy to lay the boot into Europe, cop this one. I don't believe the US would be in the predicament it's currently in if it weren't so insular and ignorant of the outside world. Worse still, many are apparently content to remain ignorant.

The enemy is dullness of mind.
- Tom Robbins
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
No rules mean you dont arrest them, you kill them.

Yes, but as per my above post, how do you tell who "they" are? That's sort of the problem isn't it?

It's not like governments have a list of terrorists that they know the whereabouts of and they're too busy worrying about the niceties of criminal law to move in.

It's that terrorist by their very nature tend to be parts of populations that are not terrorists, but may to varying degrees support the same causes as the the terrorists and may tacitly support their means.

So is it "with us or against us" time? Do the populations that surround and support terrorists get reclassified as terrorists themselves, and therefore become subject to the "kill on sight" strategy?

And if those populations are now terrorists, what about the next layer of support-- the people who aided and abetted the people who aided and abetted the terrorists? Terrorists themselves, presumably, and so on.

This is what comes of not only declaring war, but announcing a policy of no prisoners, against what is itself a strategy.

It gets so hard to know when to stop.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
You are confusing stupid foreign policy with appeasing those without a State killing foreign civilians all over the world. It is different and i think you know that.

The EU investing in Palestinian infrastructure is not what I am talking about. it is allowing Palestinian terrorists to slip through airports on their way to killing Americans or israelis as long as that European country is not attacked.

Northern ireland-how long did that conflict last? Would it have been solved sooner if they didnt resort to terror? I think it would. I also think there would have been a Palestinian State a long time ago if it werent for Arafat, your hero.

No, I'm talking about appeasing mass murderers. Appeasment. Letting them get away with it.

You're accusing the EU of direct, knowing complicity in murder. Worse then appeasment. PUT. THE KOOLAID. DOWN.

By the way, what the fuck are you talking about? Could you provide a link, because I'm trying to think of a single case of this international Palestinian terror campaign, and, well, failing. Possibly because it doesn't exist.

On the subject of Northern Ireland, I suggest you shut the fuck up because you're just showing how little you know about it. The 'terrorist' fight is seen by many to have started in 1920 after 200-ish years of occupation. The beginning of the end started with public negotiations with the political representatives of the terrorists in 1994.

If the UK had done what you suggested, anyone sitting on the edge would have become polarised and picked up a gun. Thousands of innocents would have died; their relatives would have had a cause and become angry. Ordinary people would have become terrorists. Massive unrest and guerrilla warfare.

Just like in Iraq.

Negotiations work, all-out violence doesn't. But when you base policies on faith rather then fact, which is America's tragedy right now, things like facts become irrelevant.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
The EU investing in Palestinian infrastructure is not what I am talking about. it is allowing Palestinian terrorists to slip through airports on their way to killing Americans or israelis as long as that European country is not attacked.

Which is all very well, but Palestinians haven't been involved in any international terrorism I can remember and the EU doesn't allow terrorists of any kind 'to slip through airports'.
post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
This one I shouldn't reply to because now you are trolling. But hey, you wanna dig a hole for yourself, I'll grab a shovel and help you out.

Expert huh? Well if you think somebody whose knowledge of Northern Ireland derives almost entirely from newspapers and the TV news, then I'll wear the mantle of expert but not exactly proudly.

You know what? You could have Googled the answers to all but the last of those questions (the last one was sarcasm) and replied so quickly that I wouldn't have known whether you really knew what you were talking about or not. But you couldn't even be bothered doing that.

If you don't know who the main protaganists were in the NI or any other conflict for that matter, you do not have the right to say things like "kill 'em all".



You tell me. (No linky I'm afraid, lazy sod.)

And seeing you're happy to lay the boot into Europe, cop this one. I don't believe the US would be in the predicament it's currently in if it weren't so insular and ignorant of the outside world. Worse still, many are apparently content to remain ignorant.

The enemy is dullness of mind.
- Tom Robbins

This a waste of my time. Its easy to call the US ignorant of the outside world when the outside world does so little on its own without us.
Where was Europe in Bosnia? Isnt that your own back yard?
I dont agree with us going into Iraq without international assistance, but the chances of that happening, even if Saddam did kick the UN out again would have been slim. Exvept for Britain of course, the only country not afraid to flex its muscles when the need arises. Eastern Europe with its small budgets and military shows more balls than the whole of Western Europe combined.
post #48 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Yes, but as per my above post, how do you tell who "they" are? That's sort of the problem isn't it?

It's not like governments have a list of terrorists that they know the whereabouts of and they're too busy worrying about the niceties of criminal law to move in.

It's that terrorist by their very nature tend to be parts of populations that are not terrorists, but may to varying degrees support the same causes as the the terrorists and may tacitly support their means.

So is it "with us or against us" time? Do the populations that surround and support terrorists get reclassified as terrorists themselves, and therefore become subject to the "kill on sight" strategy?

And if those populations are now terrorists, what about the next layer of support-- the people who aided and abetted the people who aided and abetted the terrorists? Terrorists themselves, presumably, and so on.

This is what comes of not only declaring war, but announcing a policy of no prisoners, against what is itself a strategy.

It gets so hard to know when to stop.

Its not easy because its not a conventional war. The intelligence is usually sufficient enough that we know where and who they are. Take a look at all the arrests around the world. They are capable of finding them, its what they do with them thats the question.
post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
No, I'm talking about appeasing mass murderers. Appeasment. Letting them get away with it.

You're accusing the EU of direct, knowing complicity in murder. Worse then appeasment. PUT. THE KOOLAID. DOWN.

By the way, what the fuck are you talking about? Could you provide a link, because I'm trying to think of a single case of this international Palestinian terror campaign, and, well, failing. Possibly because it doesn't exist.

On the subject of Northern Ireland, I suggest you shut the fuck up because you're just showing how little you know about it. The 'terrorist' fight is seen by many to have started in 1920 after 200-ish years of occupation. The beginning of the end started with public negotiations with the political representatives of the terrorists in 1994.

If the UK had done what you suggested, anyone sitting on the edge would have become polarised and picked up a gun. Thousands of innocents would have died; their relatives would have had a cause and become angry. Ordinary people would have become terrorists. Massive unrest and guerrilla warfare.

Just like in Iraq.

Negotiations work, all-out violence doesn't. But when you base policies on faith rather then fact, which is America's tragedy right now, things like facts become irrelevant.

You mean you had no idea that Palestinians have killed innocent people all over the world? In Germany, in international waters, hijacking,in Israel, etc etc. You really had no idea? Come on now.

As for Northern ireland, from 1920 till 1994 there were terrorist acts and then they finally started talking and you consider that a victory?
post #50 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Which is all very well, but Palestinians haven't been involved in any international terrorism I can remember and the EU doesn't allow terrorists of any kind 'to slip through airports'.

Germany released the Palestinian terrorists that killed the Israelis in the olympics.
Italy acknowledged having let palestinian terrorists pass through their territory with the knowledge that italy would not be a target.

The Palestinians killed Israelis IN Germany-I consider that international.
The Palestinians killed an American on the Achille Lauro-I consider that international.
Even after all these instances Arafat was given a hero's welcome at the UN. Nice world.
post #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
This a waste of my time. Its easy to call the US ignorant of the outside world when the outside world does so little on its own without us.

Gosh how would we cope without you.

Quote:
Where was Europe in Bosnia?

You could look at this to find out.

Quote:
Isnt that your own back yard?

Not exactly, no.

Quote:
I dont agree with us going into Iraq without international assistance, but the chances of that happening, even if Saddam did kick the UN out again would have been slim.

Huh?

Quote:
Exvept for Britain of course, the only country not afraid to flex its muscles when the need arises.

Actually, Australia was dumb enough to join the Coalition of the Willing too. (See how jumping to conclusions can lead to mistakes.) Glad to see our efforts are soooooo appreciated by you. I'd like to think our presence will go unnoticed by terrorist groups seeking retaliation as well. Unfortunately, it seems we've already caught their eye.

Quote:
Eastern Europe with its small budgets and military shows more balls than the whole of Western Europe combined.

Not only do dicks not grow on trees. Balls aren't all they're cracked up to be either.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #52 of 85
quote:
Originally posted by steve666
This a waste of my time. Its easy to call the US ignorant of the outside world when the outside world does so little on its own without us.
Gosh how would we cope without you.<

You couldnt


>quote:
I dont agree with us going into Iraq without international assistance, but the chances of that happening, even if Saddam did kick the UN out again would have been slim.
Huh?<

If Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors again we would have most definitely attacked. Bush attacked before Saddam had a chance to kick out the inspectors, which I think was his biggest mistake. If Saddam had kicked out the inspectors we would have been more likely to have received assistance from more countries. Not France of course.


>quote:
Exvept for Britain of course, the only country not afraid to flex its muscles when the need arises.
Actually, Australia was dumb enough to join the Coalition of the Willing too. (See how jumping to conclusions can lead to mistakes.) Glad to see our efforts are soooooo appreciated by you. I'd like to think our presence will go unnoticed by terrorist groups seeking retaliation as well. Unfortunately, it seems we've already caught their eye.<

Australia is not a part of Europe unless something happened while i slept. I was critiquing European actions, or lack thereof.
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Australia is not a part of Europe unless something happened while i slept.

You assumed I was European from my comments ("isn't that your own back yard?"). Dodge and weave all you fucking like. Just because you lack the ability to critically analyse the actions of other countries/political blocs, don't assume we all do.

Quote:
I was critiquing European actions, or lack thereof.

Spain (oh that's right you don't count anymore), Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland and Italy you can kiss steve666's arse.

I've had enough of this. Your ignorance is sad. Your decision to remain ignorant is insulting.

Fucking PO. Whose bright idea was this.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
You assumed I was European from my comments ("isn't that your own back yard?"). Dodge and weave all you fucking like. Just because you lack the ability to critically analyse the actions of other countries/political blocs, don't assume we all do.

Spain (oh that's right you don't count anymore), Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland and Italy you can kiss steve666's arse.

I've had enough of this. Your ignorance is sad. Your decision to remain ignorant is insulting.

Fucking PO. Whose bright idea was this.

My my , what a petulant arse.
I assumed you were European because I usually dont hear such whiny, spineless bellyaching from Aussies.
Its always the left wing fuknuts who cry about ignorance when confronted by another point of view.
post #55 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
My my , what a petulant arse.
I assumed you were European because I usually dont hear such whiny, spineless bellyaching from Aussies.
Its always the left wing fuknuts who cry about ignorance when confronted by another point of view.

Not so much. It's usually the left that gets a little churlish when confronting, yet again, the invulnerable ignorance of the right.

Being stupid and belligerent never comes off very well.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Not so much. It's usually the left that gets a little churlish when confronting, yet again, the invulnerable ignorance of the right.

Being stupid and belligerent never comes off very well.

I left out pompous.
post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
My my , what a petulant arse.
I assumed you were European because I usually dont hear such whiny, spineless bellyaching from Aussies.
Its always the left wing fuknuts who cry about ignorance when confronted by another point of view.

Well this whiny, spineless, bellyaching Aussie has decided she is sailing too close to becoming that which she despises, and is exercising her discretion as the better part of valor.

So no hard feelings steve.

But just by-the-by, our right wing party, the Liberals, would fall somewhere to the left of your Democrats.

In other words, we're almost as big left wing fuknuts as those tree-hugging, hippy, namby pamby Europeans.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
Well this whiny, spineless, bellyaching Aussie has decided she is sailing too close to becoming that which she despises, and is exercising her discretion as the better part of valor.

So no hard feelings steve.

But just by-the-by, our right wing party, the Liberals, would fall somewhere to the left of your Democrats.

In other words, we're almost as big left wing fuknuts as those tree-hugging, hippy, namby pamby Europeans.

I dont know, I have always found that Australia doesnt take any crap from anyone either. Perhaps thats why Americans are so fond of you'all down under. Its impossible for everyone to think exactly alike, so there are differences within each country but generalities can be formed. I wont even go into a discussion of France \

Just for the record, I am not a Republican and I cant stand George Bush.
I consider myself a moderate and an independent, but when it comes to terrorists I see no need for anything less than their elimination. They just cant be reasoned with, and basically shouldnt be, IMHO
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I dont know, I have always found that Australia doesnt take any crap from anyone either.

Don't know if you saw, I think it was Ander's, recent link to John Titor's the time travellers web site. Good for a laugh. Anyway, John says after a nuclear war in 2015, amid the destruction and contamination, a new spirit of international cooperation is born.

Then somebody asks him about Australia. He replies that not much is known about Australia, that we withdrew into ourselves and seem to be pretty ticked off with everybody. This actually rings true to me. Basically because we'll be really pissed if the rest of ya screw up our ability to party and generally have a good time.

Old Australian saying "She'll be right mate". Loosely translated means "don't worry, be happy".

Glad to hear you're a Bushwhacker anyway. Give him a whack for me.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I consider myself a moderate and an independent, but when it comes to terrorists I see no need for anything less than their elimination. They just cant be reasoned with, and basically shouldnt be, IMHO

The problem with this attitude is that we would have to eliminate both the Israelis & the Palestinians, and the Chechyns and Russians.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
Don't know if you saw, I think it was Ander's, recent link to John Titor's the time travellers web site. Good for a laugh. Anyway, John says after a nuclear war in 2015, amid the destruction and contamination, a new spirit of international cooperation is born.

Then somebody asks him about Australia. He replies that not much is known about Australia, that we withdrew into ourselves and seem to be pretty ticked off with everybody. This actually rings true to me. Basically because we'll be really pissed if the rest of ya screw up our ability to party and generally have a good time.

Old Australian saying "She'll be right mate". Loosely translated means "don't worry, be happy".

Glad to hear you're a Bushwhacker anyway. Give him a whack for me.

Well, dont know if Kerry is the answer, Im not crazy about him either. The US could use more than a 2 party system right now. Party on while ya can!
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The problem with this attitude is that we would have to eliminate both the Israelis & the Palestinians, and the Chechyns and Russians.

I dont really understand your definition of a terrorist. You're lumping entire countries in with terrorists who see a child and shoot a child. I dont know of any Russian or israeli who would willingly kill a child, or a civilian for that matter.
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I dont really understand your definition of a terrorist. You're lumping entire countries in with terrorists who see a child and shoot a child. I dont know of any Russian or israeli who would willingly kill a child, or a civilian for that matter.

You don't have a valid definition of a terrorist. If they're tan they're bad guys? Seriously, you don't have a valid argument. Your words are harsh rhetoric that are completely useless in the real world.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #64 of 85
The rants of Steve666 apart, I do think Russia was right in ending the siege the way it did. While I would be pissed off if my loved ones were amongst those who died, I think that giving in to hostage taker's demands is even worse.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You don't have a valid definition of a terrorist. If they're tan they're bad guys? Seriously, you don't have a valid argument. Your words are harsh rhetoric that are completely useless in the real world.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I have no idea what you're talking about.

You want no less than the 'elimination' of 'terrorists'. Who would you kill? I think the problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #67 of 85
Here's one reason "killing terrorists" is a really bad idea:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department asked a judge Tuesday to throw out the convictions of a suspected terror cell in Detroit because of prosecutorial misconduct, reversing course in a case the Bush administration once hailed as a major victory in the war on terrorism.

In a late-night filing, the department told U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen that it supports the Detroit defendants' request for a new trial and would no longer pursue terrorism charges against them. That means the defendants at most would only face fraud charges at a new trial.

The Justice Department is "concurring in the defendants' motions for a new trial" and asks the court to dismiss the first count of the original indictment charging the defendants with material support of terrorism, according to a summary of the government's filing that was obtained by The Associated Press through the court's electronic access system.

The filing said there was a 60-page memo laying out the government's concerns about its own prosecutors' handling of the case, but that document was not immediately available through the courts' electronic access.

Now by Steve 666's standard of justice, these guys would already be dead.

It took this long for the Justice department to figure out that they had no case.

And this wasn't some obscure little terrorist trial-- here's John Ashcroft on the original conviction of the suspects back in 2003 :

Quote:
Todays convictions sends a clear message: The Department of Justice will work diligently to detect, disrupt and dismantle the activities of terrorist cells in the United States and abroad. We will commit every resource to preventing terrorist attacks, and sending those who aid our enemies to jail. Todays verdict reaffirms our commitment to pursuing aggressively the evidence wherever it may lead.


I congratulate the prosecutors and agents who worked tirelessly on this case. Because of their efforts, Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi faces up to 20 years in prison, Karim Koubriti faces up to 10 years in prison, and Ahmed Hannan faces up to five years in prison. I also thank the jurors in Detroit for the service they provided their country in hearing this trial.


Every victory in the courtroom brings us closer to our ultimate goal of victory in the war on terrorism. The Department of Justice will continue its aggressive battle in the courts to ensure the safety and security of all Americans.

Oops. If a high profile case, lauded by the Attorney General as a significant win in the WOT can prove to be baseless, what are the odds that the various swarthy types world-wide marked for death under the Steve 666 doctrine will in every case be guilty as, um... killed?

That's how come the justice system, dude. That's how come the rule of law. Because people are fallible, institutions are fallible, and when it comes down to wholesale slaughter, don't you think it might be a good idea to have some idea if the people you are killing are actually who think they are and have done what you think they have?

"Terrorism" doesn't change the nature of justice one bit, and I I find it frightening how many people seem to think it does.

It's not about "coddling" the guilty, or "understanding their point of view". It's about just and proportional punishment. you don't get that by just saying "kill 'em all".

It's a barbaric and savage notion, that it's OK to wade through the blood of the innocent to get at the guilty.

A lot like terrorism itself, you know?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You want no less than the 'elimination' of 'terrorists'. Who would you kill? I think the problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think the problem is that you have a comprehension problem. We know who the terrorists are. We have arrested hundreds of them. The question is, do we follow the rule of law in hunting for them and capturing them or do we just eliminate them.
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Here's one reason "killing terrorists" is a really bad idea:



Now by Steve 666's standard of justice, these guys would already be dead.

It took this long for the Justice department to figure out that they had no case.

And this wasn't some obscure little terrorist trial-- here's John Ashcroft on the original conviction of the suspects back in 2003 :



Oops. If a high profile case, lauded by the Attorney General as a significant win in the WOT can prove to be baseless, what are the odds that the various swarthy types world-wide marked for death under the Steve 666 doctrine will in every case be guilty as, um... killed?

That's how come the justice system, dude. That's how come the rule of law. Because people are fallible, institutions are fallible, and when it comes down to wholesale slaughter, don't you think it might be a good idea to have some idea if the people you are killing are actually who think they are and have done what you think they have?

"Terrorism" doesn't change the nature of justice one bit, and I I find it frightening how many people seem to think it does.

It's not about "coddling" the guilty, or "understanding their point of view". It's about just and proportional punishment. you don't get that by just saying "kill 'em all".

It's a barbaric and savage notion, that it's OK to wade through the blood of the innocent to get at the guilty.

A lot like terrorism itself, you know?

The justices never said they were innocent. The case was flawed because letter T wasnt signed on the dotted line, or the defense wasnt given article A, or some other bullshit.
Thats why terrorists cant be dealt with by rule of law. Those that aid and abett them need to pay the ultimate price also, not be set free by some anal retentive judge.
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
The justices never said they were innocent. The case was flawed because letter T wasnt signed on the dotted line, or the defense wasnt given article A, or some other bullshit.
Thats why terrorists cant be dealt with by rule of law. Those that aid and abett them need to pay the ultimate price also, not be set free by some anal retentive judge.

You might want to read that article again. The justice department was talking about "prosecutorial misconduct". As in "withheld evidence from the defense".

This isn't about some procedural screw up. It's about exculpating evidence being suppressed. As in, "no jury would convict had they known".

You don't really think the Bush "no rules apply to us" administration would drop a high profile case like this because somebody forgot to "cross a T" do you?

Which, again, is why we don't let people like you (or at least we didn't before the Patriot Act) make the decisions about guilt and innocence.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
You might want to read that article again. The justice department was talking about "prosecutorial misconduct". As in "withheld evidence from the defense".

This isn't about some procedural screw up. It's about exculpating evidence being suppressed. As in, "no jury would convict had they known".

You don't really think the Bush "no rules apply to us" administration would drop a high profile case like this because somebody forgot to "cross a T" do you?

Which, again, is why we don't let people like you (or at least we didn't before the Patriot Act) make the decisions about guilt and innocence.

Withholding eveidence can mean many different things. It usually means that the prosecution didnt give the defense a chance to see that evidence so they could come up with a defense against that evidence.
No rules means the fuckers dont go free because of a judicial error or oversight.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Withholding eveidence can mean many different things. It usually means that the prosecution didnt give the defense a chance to see that evidence so they could come up with a defense against that evidence.
No rules means the fuckers dont go free because of a judicial error or oversight.

Steve, get a grip. "Innocent until proven guilty", remember? How do you know that these guys are, um, "fuckers"?

Is the new standard "if John Ashcroft accuses them?". Because there have been quite a few "we got the terrorists" announcements that turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Remember all those impressive numbers in re "terror cells" disrupted? Turns out the vast majority of them were things like immigration violations.

In fact, one of the reasons Ashcroft was all over this one is that his justice department really isn't getting much in the way of terror convictions at all.

On account of the motherfucking evidence doesn't hold up in court!

Got that? Being accused is not the same as being guilty, here in America, last time I checked.

You know why? Is it because we are a permissive society? Is it because we bend over backwards to coddle the criminal? Is it because the liberals have brainwashed us into taking better care of the perpetrator than the victim?

(Notices US has highest incarceration rate in the world). Hmmmm,,,,, it would appear not..

Could it be.... that people are accused of things for all kind of reasons other than being guilty? Like, a simple mistake? Like, over-zealous prosecutors trying to make their bones? Like, notoriously shaky eye-witness testimony? Like, dubious deals made with accusers for a lighter sentence? Like, sheer incompetence?

So your charming idea of simply killing the fuckers as soon as they are accused is, um....what's the word.......oh, yeah, crazy.

Well., crazy, blood thirsty, counter productive, unworkable and evil.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #73 of 85
Once upon a time, if you called someone a fascist in an internet forum you'd get a tirade from both the offended party and the mods.

But some people have caught up with the rhetoric; not metaphorically, not symbolically.

steve666, you're a fascist.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Steve, get a grip. "Innocent until proven guilty", remember? How do you know that these guys are, um, "fuckers"?

Is the new standard "if John Ashcroft accuses them?". Because there have been quite a few "we got the terrorists" announcements that turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Remember all those impressive numbers in re "terror cells" disrupted? Turns out the vast majority of them were things like immigration violations.

In fact, one of the reasons Ashcroft was all over this one is that his justice department really isn't getting much in the way of terror convictions at all.

On account of the motherfucking evidence doesn't hold up in court!

Got that? Being accused is not the same as being guilty, here in America, last time I checked.

You know why? Is it because we are a permissive society? Is it because we bend over backwards to coddle the criminal? Is it because the liberals have brainwashed us into taking better care of the perpetrator than the victim?

(Notices US has highest incarceration rate in the world). Hmmmm,,,,, it would appear not..

Could it be.... that people are accused of things for all kind of reasons other than being guilty? Like, a simple mistake? Like, over-zealous prosecutors trying to make their bones? Like, notoriously shaky eye-witness testimony? Like, dubious deals made with accusers for a lighter sentence? Like, sheer incompetence?

So your charming idea of simply killing the fuckers as soon as they are accused is, um....what's the word.......oh, yeah, crazy.

Well., crazy, blood thirsty, counter productive, unworkable and evil.

Bullshit. People get off for technicalities all the time, or because of moronic juries(remember OJ?). A child killer just got out of jail early because of good behavior in jail in NY. Joel Steinberg, Ill never forget that mother for killing his adopted daughter-now he's free. Hopefully someone will beat him to death like he did to her. Thats out justice system-its full of holes so guilty as hell pieces of human garbage get out to do damage once more or get away with murder.
I would rather they go after the scum and kill them than waste time in the courts. If they have ties with Al-Queda, kill them.
post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Once upon a time, if you called someone a fascist in an internet forum you'd get a tirade from both the offended party and the mods.

But some people have caught up with the rhetoric; not metaphorically, not symbolically.

steve666, you're a fascist.

And you're a pussy. So what, we can call each other names all day long if you'd like.
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Bullshit. People get off for technicalities all the time, or because of moronic juries(remember OJ?). A child killer just got out of jail early because of good behavior in jail in NY. Joel Steinberg, Ill never forget that mother for killing his adopted daughter-now he's free. Hopefully someone will beat him to death like he did to her. Thats out justice system-its full of holes so guilty as hell pieces of human garbage get out to do damage once more or get away with murder.
I would rather they go after the scum and kill them than waste time in the courts. If they have ties with Al-Queda, kill them.

<sarcasm> Wow, good response! </sarcasm> What do you do when you become an enemy of the state? What then?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
<sarcasm> Wow, good response! </sarcasm> What do you do when you become an enemy of the state? What then?

You die
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
You die

Contrite answer; however, when I used 'you' I didn't mean the nebulous 'you' as in everyman. I meant you---steve666.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Contrite answer; however, when I used 'you' I didn't mean the nebulous 'you' as in everyman. I meant you---steve666.

I would never be an enemy of the state
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I would never be an enemy of the state

OK... Until the state begins to change the rules that is right? Remember, people in the USSR cried when Stalin died. People cried ove Mao. A totalitarian government doesn't require the full force of the military to maintain control, only the lack of will from the people to fight.

How many times in the past have honest citizens been branded enemies of the state? I can name at least one incident and it happened this century.

Good Day.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Russia losing the War on Terror